Artificial Intelligence (AI) is beginning to affect almost every industry, and medical writing is no different. But how does this relate to our industry? How will AI affect medical writers? What’s already available and what is in the pipeline? Should medical writers be happy and embrace the technology, or should we resist as much as we can, assuming that we will all be replaced by machines? This article discusses the current state of the art of AI in medical writing and asks the question: AI for medical writers – friend or foe?

In the world of drug development and approval, time is of the essence. But beginning the process with a poorly written protocol will only impede teams before a study has even begun. Julia Forjanic Klapproth, co-founder of Trilogy Writing & Consulting, describes how a well-written protocol will help patients receive their treatments sooner rather than later.

Process optimization, effective management, and organisation strategies are all essential components when preparing CTD submission dossiers for drug approval.

Streamlining meetings with regulatory authorities is a continually evolving process. But what role do briefing documents play, and what is the best way to produce these effectively?

In an earlier article about artificial intelligence (AI) for medical writing1, I stressed that AI tools would assist, accelerate and augment the process of clinical documentation. I also argued that the key to the third aspect, augmentation, was the use and future acceptance of standard texts.

While the ICH’s Common Technical Document (CTD) is an internationally agreed format for preparing application dossiers needed for obtaining approval to market a drug, the ensuing review process is specific to the country or region in question. Irrespective of the differences in process between countries and regions, questions will almost always be issued during the review process, with a request for written responses.

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted the whole world and the public has had to struggle with understanding scientific data on a daily basis. The impact of scientific misunderstanding became painfully apparent with the decline in vaccine uptake and so the need for clear, understandable scientific information has never been more vital.

Clinical study protocols are important cornerstones on the journey of collecting the clinical data needed to elucidate the benefit-risk profile of medical treatments/devices. Not only do they lay down the plan for the study at hand, they serve as a repository of knowledge for the strategic intentions and will be used for multiple down-stream activities. They are the basis for trial registration, provide guidance to those running the study, and will be used by participants, ethics committees/institutional review boards, funders, regulators, journal editors, and systematic reviewers to appraise the study.

The most difficult task an author can face is clearly summarising a complex and data-filled clinical regulatory document and explaining the data. Barry Drees, co-founder and senior partner of Trilogy Writing & Consulting, discusses the recent concept of ‘lean medical writing’ (LMW), and how it is being implemented and used in the pharmaceutical industry.

Despite the fact that patient-friendly versions of many regulatory documents are now mandated by the regulations, the most frequently encountered reaction to communicating patient information is apathy.

Trilogy hosted its second virtual Think Tank on how to make the process of writing and coordinating a CTD submission dossier as efficient as possible and, ultimately, reduce the stress often associated with this activity.

Given the extreme complexity and difficulty of developing new pharmaceutical products, one would think that the planning for such an endeavour would be taken very seriously. Yet, somewhat surprisingly, it frequently is not.

Translating complex clinical regulatory documents into versions that are understandable to patients and the general public was never going to be an easy task, but it is a very necessary, important, and now legally mandated one. This article argues that the advent of the clinical trial results lay summary requirement has highlighted the need for patient involvement in clinical trials at the very earliest stages.

In a drive for more patient-centric healthcare practices, medical writers are increasingly required to present medical and health information in an easy-to-understand, ‘plain language’ format. The move towards patient engagement and patient involvement in healthcare decisions (‘shared care’) has triggered a raft of new guidances from regulatory authorities.

The most recent changes to regulatory legislation in terms of information for patients – the introduction of the lay summary of the risk management plan (RMP) and the lay summary of clinical trial results (CTRs) – have caused great discussion and concern in an industry very willing to provide information to patients, but more used to producing complex scientific information for regulatory authorities (RAs).

In 2014, as part of its Clinical Trial Transparency initiative, the EMA mandated a requirement (CTR EU No 536/2014) for clinical trial sponsors to prepare a summary of the results of every clinical trial written in language understandable to lay persons (plain language) no later than one year after the end of the trial in the EU. These CTR lay summaries will be made available in a new EU database; it was planned for 2018, but it is likely that it will not now be implemented before 2020.

We examine the trend for increasing and more transparent patient information and ask how close we have come in the last few years to producing useful and meaningful information for patients. We also outline the challenges faced by medical writers and the pharmaceutical industry as a whole in trying to comply with recent European requirements for the creation of lay summaries of key regulatory submission documents.

Biosimilars are biological drugs that are similar to, and cheaper than other biological drugs (called “reference originator biologics”) that are already in use. They share an identical amino-acid sequence but, given the inherent variability of biological molecules, not full “sameness”.

As part of its Clinical Trial Transparency initiative, the EMA mandated a requirement for clinical trial sponsors to prepare a summary of the results of every clinical trial written in language understandable to lay persons (patients and others not in the pharmaceutical industry). The regulation (CTR EU No 536/2014) obliges the company to produce this summary of results for the lay audience one year after the end of the trial in the EU.

This special edition is meant to increase the general awareness of the need for good documentation on the one hand and to provide good medical writing practices and tricks of the trade on the other hand. It is intended to have lasting value as a reference book for the target audience – medical writers and everyone in the pharmaceutical industry working with medical writers.